T-Max 100 & T-Max 400 Backing Issue and Ektachrome 100 Update

[removedacct1]

The last 40 rolls of TMAX400 I bought was from B & H. I bought them in Nov. of 2016, shot 20 rolls almost immediately and processed them in 2 weeks. Virtually every frame had numbers and KODAK imprinted on them. An entire family vacation's worth of photos ruined.

And its become quite obvious that because of this, you've been grinding an axe ever since. You're going to hold this grudge against Big K forever, and that's fine, but you're going to have to allow the rest of us to view the issue from a less biased perspective, and to discourage incessant axe-grinding when necessary.
It is my perception that you would love to have everyone believe that Kodak's Tmax products are garbage and no sensible human being should ever allow this crap to dirty the inside of their cameras, and that is - in my estimation - a gross distortion of the facts, and is very misleading to those who listen.
Nobody is saying that there isn't still old, affected inventory floating around the storerooms of sellers like amazon, when its pretty clear that some of this older inventory still exists and gets sold. (I would like to think that if anyone buys Tmax films through sellers like Amazon, that they would at least check to see if their purchase is from known problem batches before using it) But to suggest (as I sense you do) that this is going to be a persistent, unending problem is a distortion of fact, and I object to that.

 

[Ai Print]

And its become quite obvious that because of this, you've been grinding an axe ever since. You're going to hold this grudge against Big K forever, and that's fine, but you're going to have to allow the rest of us to view the issue from a less biased perspective, and to discourage incessant axe-grinding when necessary.

Oh, if only it were as simple as just him puking on Kodak for the backing paper incident. It has been going on well before this incident and is not just relegated to Kodak or this forum for that matter.

There have been bans from other forums, nastiness and relentless negativity toward other brands, people, etc.

This person feeds off of this type of entanglement and I think to most, it is a broad indicator of a problem that is far more personal and actually quite sad in their life.

Just put him on ignore and keep making this site a better place by not feeding him.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Just put him on ignore and keep making this site a better place by not feeding him.

Please take this advice. I've had it on ignore for a long time, but others keep addressing its attacks in their own posts, so the annoyance persists.

 

[faberryman]

But to suggest (as I sense you do) that this is going to be a persistent, unending problem is a distortion of fact, and I object to that.

It need not be an unending problem, but, based on reports here, it is an ongoing problem whose resolution is elusive, even after several years. We can look forward to a solution in the future, without denying an issue in the present. In the interim, there are problem free alternatives.

 

[Ai Print]

TMY2 is my all time favorite film, so I can’t imagine the frustration I would feel if the issue pops up again ( I was affected).

But as I have mentioned before, my choosing certain products from certain makers is a partnership based on mutual respect and trust and within the niche of the film movement, we are all in it together and need to try to remain open minded, positive and helpful.

I won’t be one of those people coating my own film or plates, so I want to rely on the great products we have. Hopefully this all slips into the past as a problem who’s solution was elusive but persistence and patience paid off.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I had a backing paper issue with Efke 25, circa 1988. I do not recall from whom I purchased it, they not only gave me store credit but also replaced the film; they said it was a storage problem. I still have 3 or four of the bad rolls if anyone wants one. The replacement film was good, I used Efke 25 and 100 sheet film until it disappeared.

 

[cmacd123]

MY question, is rather than the rants - Has the person who had this problem contacted Kodak Alaris and provided them with the Emulsion number and the serial number found near the start of every roll? Have they responded?

Saying that a random roll of Gray market film of uncertain vintage has a problem, when we know that certain batched DID have problems is hardly going to assist in resolving the issue. Yes, George Eastman could make every bit of what went in a package in house which did allow problems like this ot be controled.

What does the Alaris rep say?

 

[mnemosyne]

It need not be an unending problem, but, based on reports here, it is an ongoing problem

Not based on reports, but based on ONE single report that contains little or no evidence except for the reporter's claims that it is a case of THE backing paper problem. IMHO, you are jumping to conclusions.

 

[Ste_S]

The OP has been quite forthcoming with info on the latest reported experience. Perhaps one more piece? What camera were you using?

Answered earlier in the thread, a Mamiya C330. I've run multiple rolls of Portra 400, XP2 and Neopan 400CN (Fuji branded XP2) before with no issue. This was the first roll of TMAX400 through it.
Other rolls from this batch of TMAX I've run through a Zeiss Ikon Nettar without issue.

Checked on my Amazon order, and the film was from Amazon themselves rather than a third party seller.

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks and sorry I missed that piece of info.

 

[BrianShaw]

Not based on reports, but based on ONE single report that contains little or no evidence except for the reporter's claims that it is a case of THE backing paper problem. IMHO, you are jumping to conclusions.

Given the breadth and depth of the information provided I wouldn’t know what else to suspect. What do you think caused the problematic images?

 

[Wallendo]

I had a bad batch of Ektar a while back and am still somewhat gun-shy when purchasing Kodak 120 products. My concern has been that neither EK or KA has publicly stated the exact nature of the problem. The standard explanation was that the film was somehow stored improperly after shipping from Kodak. It was a sporadic problem only affecting certain rolls within batches. I would feel a lot better if someone from Kodak would state something along the lines of "This was the problem, and this was how we fixed it."

The example posted on this thread is obviously a backing paper issue of some sort, although it may be a separate issue from the original backing paper issue. The OP stated that the image did not come out well, and I suspect that scanner software, while trying to normalize a poorly exposed negative, amplified a faint imprint significantly enough to produce a noticeable image. If my hypothesis (random guess?) is correct, it suggests that there is still a little print-through, but that it would be unlikely to be noticeable under normal circumstances.

I have a decent stock of 120 film stored up, and won't need to buy any for a few more months, so hopefully more information will be available when it is time for me to buy.

 

[faberryman]

I shifted to Ilford Delta. Not anxious to go back until there are no more reports of problems. Not willing to roll the dice with my time.

 

[mnemosyne]

Given the breadth and depth of the information provided I wouldn’t know what else to suspect. What do you think caused the problematic images?

Please read my post in context, I was replying to the following statement by faberryman in post #79

It need not be an unending problem, but, based on reports here, it is an ongoing problem whose resolution is elusive, even after several years.

(highlighted by me)

My point is: a single, isolated occurrence of a backing paper problem in a (so-called) "post fix" batch is simply not enough evidence to conclude that THE backing paper problem (the one that plagued Kodak massively in 2016) is still here. This is why I wrote that faberryman was jumping to conclusions when he wrote that "based on reports here it is an ongoing problem"

Reviewing the pictures, the case presented by Ste_S sure enough appears to be A backing paper problem in the sense that there obviously was some kind of reaction between the paper and the film. But there simply is no evidence it is THE SAME backing paper problem that led to the big blunder in 2016. Remember,there have been single, isolated cases of backing paper problems with all manufacturers at all times. As has been already noted by others, the pictures provided by Ste_S show wide areas of mottling which is an indication that the material was exposed to humidity/heat at some time. I have had exactly the same problem with some rolls Ilford FP4+ a couple of years ago. In the case presented here, it is, for example, completely possible that the foil wrapper was damaged slightly during packaging and the film/paper was exposed directly to heat/humidity at some point during distribution.

Unless more of this problems surface with recent (so-called "post fix") batches of the film, I remain skeptical about any claims that this is the same old backing paper problem from 2016.

 

[BrianShaw]

Even re-reading in context I cannot see anything wrong with what Ferryman wrote. But thanks for your assessment... it is very interesting.

The big problem that I see is a lack of either transparency or communication from the company in question. It leaves a lot for us to all speculate about. You are skeptical for your reasons and others are skeptical for their different reasons. In short... none of us have much to work with but our shared experiences and assumptions. The EK/Alaris input/conclusions/resolutions seem to have all been second-hand and "loosely documented"... unless I have missed the official product change releases, etc.

 

[RattyMouse]

Even re-reading in context I cannot see anything wrong with what Ferryman wrote. But thanks for your assessment... it is very interesting.

The big problem that I see is a lack of either transparency or communication from the company in question. It leaves a lot for us to all speculate about. You are skeptical for your reasons and others are skeptical for their different reasons. In short... none of us have much to work with but our shared experiences and assumptions. The EK/Alaris input/conclusions/resolutions seem to have all been second-hand and "loosely documented"... unless I have missed the official product change releases, etc.

There has been no official announcements of any kind. Unless someone has access to Kodak people behind the scenes, they are pretty much SOL. It's a completely non transparent situation; a total absence of communication. Few people I know think that's a recipe for success.

 

[faberryman]

Look, here's the deal. I don't want to spend my money on film, and more importantly my time and effort taking pictures and processing film, and end up with more of the paper backing problem. We have evidence of a post-fix paper backing problem. So I will continue to use Ilford products until report(s) of this problem cease. I have no complaints about continuing to use Ilford products in the interim.

For all those that wish to give Kodak the benefit of the doubt, you are of course free to buy and use TMY2 120, although I have to say, I think the most vocal supporters here don't buy and use TMY2 120, because no one has said they have used the new film and haven't experienced any problems.

 

[Ai Print]

For all those that wish to give Kodak the benefit of the doubt, you are of course free to buy and use TMY2 120, although I have to say, I think the most vocal supporters here don't buy and use TMY2 120, because no one has said they have used the new film and haven't experienced any problems.

I use TMY2 in 4x5, 120 and 35mm on a weekly basis. I keep about 200 rolls of 120 in stock and replenish 4 times a year. I have had zero issues with backing paper since my exchange of some 150 rolls with Kodak awhile ago.

I rely on this film for my job so if I felt there was a risk at this point, I would take measures to mitigate that risk.

 

[removedacct1]

I have to say, I think the most vocal supporters here don't buy and use TMY2 120, because no one has said they have used the new film and haven't experienced any problems.

Actually, I have stated this very thing on more than one occasion! I spoke with Mr. Mooney at Kodak and he sent me fresh replacement TMY last summer, and I have used it and found it had none of the problems the damaged batches had. So I guess I'm going to have to say this repeatedly, as tedious as that may be.

 

[Ste_S]

I had a bad batch of Ektar a while back and am still somewhat gun-shy when purchasing Kodak 120 products. My concern has been that neither EK or KA has publicly stated the exact nature of the problem. The standard explanation was that the film was somehow stored improperly after shipping from Kodak. It was a sporadic problem only affecting certain rolls within batches. I would feel a lot better if someone from Kodak would state something along the lines of "This was the problem, and this was how we fixed it."

The example posted on this thread is obviously a backing paper issue of some sort, although it may be a separate issue from the original backing paper issue. The OP stated that the image did not come out well, and I suspect that scanner software, while trying to normalize a poorly exposed negative, amplified a faint imprint significantly enough to produce a noticeable image. If my hypothesis (random guess?) is correct, it suggests that there is still a little print-through, but that it would be unlikely to be noticeable under normal circumstances.

I have a decent stock of 120 film stored up, and won't need to buy any for a few more months, so hopefully more information will be available when it is time for me to buy.

That's pretty much what I think happened also. It was a shot in the dark (ahem) that didn't work out, as was the shot with the trees and puddles which did work out (at least for me)

Please read my post in context, I was replying to the following statement by faberryman in post #79

(highlighted by me)

My point is: a single, isolated occurrence of a backing paper problem in a (so-called) "post fix" batch is simply not enough evidence to conclude that THE backing paper problem (the one that plagued Kodak massively in 2016) is still here. This is why I wrote that faberryman was jumping to conclusions when he wrote that "based on reports here it is an ongoing problem"

Reviewing the pictures, the case presented by Ste_S sure enough appears to be A backing paper problem in the sense that there obviously was some kind of reaction between the paper and the film. But there simply is no evidence it is THE SAME backing paper problem that led to the big blunder in 2016. Remember,there have been single, isolated cases of backing paper problems with all manufacturers at all times. As has been already noted by others, the pictures provided by Ste_S show wide areas of mottling which is an indication that the material was exposed to humidity/heat at some time. I have had exactly the same problem with some rolls Ilford FP4+ a couple of years ago. In the case presented here, it is, for example, completely possible that the foil wrapper was damaged slightly during packaging and the film/paper was exposed directly to heat/humidity at some point during distribution.

Unless more of this problems surface with recent (so-called "post fix") batches of the film, I remain skeptical about any claims that this is the same old backing paper problem from 2016.

Don't think it's this. Foil wrappers were all intact and none of the other shots are affected.

 

[bestbefore1978]

Sorry to drag this back up again, but just to report that I've just developed a roll of TMY-2 in the lab, emulsion code 0155-001 it has the problem (backing paper mottle and number imprint) - this is clearly visible in the negative, not just when scanned

 

[cmacd123]

Sorry to drag this back up again, but just to report that I've just developed a roll of TMY-2 in the lab, emulsion code 0155-001 it has the problem (backing paper mottle and number imprint) - this is clearly visible in the negative, not just when scanned

please please contact Kodak Alaris and see what they can tell you. (then report back to us)

 

[Lachlan Young]

Sorry to drag this back up again, but just to report that I've just developed a roll of TMY-2 in the lab, emulsion code 0155-001 it has the problem (backing paper mottle and number imprint) - this is clearly visible in the negative, not just when scanned

Backing paper mottle is usually a sign of exposure to excess humidity - long a known potential issue with all 120 films. Often a result of insufficient warming up time from colder storage conditions.

 

[bestbefore1978]

I've contacted Kodak Alaris, will report back when they reply. Here is an example frame

 

[RattyMouse]

I've contacted Kodak Alaris, will report back when they reply. Here is an example frame

I see a number 8 in your scan. Unfortunately, you are not the first to post problems with this suposidly "fixed" paper issue.